from the seriously? dept

In the wake of the settlement concerning book scanning by Google and a variety of book publishers, the Copyright Clearance Center issued one of the more ridiculous statements concerning the situation, in which they basically read into the agreement something that was never there:

"Today's news not only further establishes the value of copyright, but also points to the importance of working with rightsholders when undertaking mass digitization. Collaboration is key when it comes to copyright."

First of all, nothing in the seven-year fight or the settlement helped to "establish the value of copyright." Quite the contrary. It seemed to show what a disaster copyright is today in that it could be used to delay the creation of an amazing resource for the world through highly questionable copyright claims. As for the argument that it's important to "work with" rightsholders when doing things like this, that too is misleading. All it showed is how those rightsholders can hold up the useful creation of such a resource -- and highlight why "permission society" is holding back innovation and better tools for learning and education.

Reader Comments

Total misread...

Mike, Mike, Mike... you're such a realist, always trying to look at the bigger picture. Of course, in doing so, you completely misread the quote. Let me "enhance" it down for you:

"Today's news not only further establishes the value of copyright as a tool to hinder innovation and progress while generating new sources of legal fees, but also points to the importance of working with rightsholders when undertaking mass digitization unless you WANT to get sued, of course. Collaboration is key when it comes to copyright because if you don't collaborate voluntarily, we'll just get the courts to force you."

Re: Total misread...

Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?

Or is it a gate-keeper, bombarding me with ads page by page in order to access the works?

So tell me how I can download the full works. Because at present, those don't appear to be FREE, only "monetized" for a specific corporate entity.

And as I've said before, once in full control of such resources, Google may effectively deny it (and/or selectively) to the public: it'd be a corporatized profits version of the Domaine (something) Payante mentioned recently.

Your views, Mike, seem always that Google is benevolent, but that's just a stage most corporations go through in order to build up trust.

Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?

Mike has criticised Google plenty of times here, when they do do wrong. Of course, you will ignore that, at best saying its just proof that he's a shill, writing critical articles to divert attention away from when Google does "Real" evil.

And hey, what's wrong with ads? Google has to pay the bills somehow. It literally can't do everything for free. At some point along the line, it has to have income from somewhere.

Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?

You're right Google and any monopoly-like big corporation should be kept in check.

This however doesn't oppose the argument that publishers andts holder blocking Google AND anyone else building useful resources anyway. It may even be because of them that alternatives -benevolant, publicly sponsored and corporate- are blocked that would prevent a potential futur monopoly abuse by Google monopoly. In other words, publishers have neetly paved the way to a monopoly by the only power willing to withstand their abusive "permission-only" mindset.

Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?

Or is it a gate-keeper, bombarding me with ads page by page in order to access the works?

Good point. Except that it isn't bombarding anything. I find Google advertising to be the least intrusive so far.

So tell me how I can download the full works. Because at present, those don't appear to be FREE, only "monetized" for a specific corporate entity.

They are offering a service, a good service I'm willing to see some advertisement to help finance and monetize. And the ones that don't feel comfortable with Google monetizing on the SERVICE PROVIDED, not their works, can refuse to let their books be scanned. Those authors will be losing good and free advertisement for themselves though. So, if you are bothered by the ads go buy the book. I'm bothered by e-readers at times so I usually buy the book and download the e-book on TPB and the likes. If I get annoyed by Google ads I'll simply move away.

On a side note, I find current youtube advertising intrusive so I'm using less of the site.

And as I've said before, once in full control of such resources, Google may effectively deny it (and/or selectively) to the public

They won't dare, it would backfire hugely. Besides, any1 can scan the works, not only Google. So it's pretty simple, once they start being mischievous we, the consumers, just switch places. Actually, many are already switching after the censoring of the auto complete thing and the stupidity of content id ;)

Your views, Mike, seem always that Google is benevolent, but that's just a stage most corporations go through in order to build up trust.

As pointed above, you seem to be new to techdirt, he has already criticized Google at times they were wrong. Oh wait, you aren't new here...

Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?

And as I've said before, once in full control of such resources

Ummm...You seem confused. Google has no control over the material. They're just trying to make it more accessible. It's the copyright maximalist that are trying to gain greater control over it and deny it to the public not Google.

but this crap is what the politicians read and then use as ammo to introduce and force into law new draconian measures in favour of copyright, rather than looking at what is truely happening (but that would involve using some brains which is almost impossible in the case of those mentioned!).

Et tu, copyright deniers?

Oh cut the horse manure. They weren't maximalists, they just wanted a cut of the revenues that Google was going to get from giving away copies for free. That's why I'm calling all of you folks copyright deniers.

And so what if it's a nice service. If I drove my car through the front glass of a store after hours, I would be creating a nice service for everyone in the neighborhood to get free stuff without waiting for the long lines at the cash register lines. And we all know from around here that if a business makes you wait for even one second, it's A-OKay to rob them blind.

This was a total 1% move from the billionaires at GOOG. They went in, took what wasn't theirs, and then insisted that it was all cool and innovative. It comes pretty close right up to the way that Columbus sailed up to America and took it for his own. And those bogus opt-out settlements offered by Big Bully Google were just like the beads that were used to purchase Manhattan. And GOOG had the temerity to insist that they were providing free publicity to the authors. At least the beads were shiny and pretty.

The fact is that the billionaires had to give up on this one. No one but the loons around here bought their insane copyright denying view of "fair use". And so we'll never learn how much money Google included in the secret resolution. We won't learn how many secret benefits they're giving the big publishers-- the ones who had the guts to challenge the billionaires on their 1%er game of taking it all and asking permission later.

This absolutely proves how copyright is a valuable law for the little guy. The publishers were tiny compared to Big Search and they were still able to stand tall like David and insist that Goliath must pay them a fair share for their hard work.

Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?

Also, where is it that they are giving away free copies? The only free copies Google gives away are of books in the public domain. Being able to see a couple pages does not constitute giving away the book.

Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?

I stopped reading you after "Google was going to get from giving away copies for free" and a glimpse at the next brainfart analogy with plundering a shop.

Google is not giving copies away. 'Nuff said.

All those publishing fools could have teamed up, created a foundation and what not to create a similar useful resource. They still can. But they wont. They prefer to be driven by they irrational fear of piracy and whine at Google for taking the challenge up, and yes, possibly make a buck for the useful service they provide to mankind.

Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?

Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?

Google is not giving the copies for free, the authors are choosing to make them available. Google is earning their money via the SERVICE they are offering.

You should be the one cutting out the horse manure. It is clear that the car smashing the glass is about SCARCE goods and a crime. The authors can refuse to get their books scanned. But facts aren't your thing are they?

Your obsession with Google seems to be a pathology, you should get treatment.

No one but the loons around here bought their insane copyright denying view of "fair use"

It's mainstream now, seems humanity is infested with loons. And it is publicity. 3 million books per year now do you honestly think that without visibility and a fan base any author can make big bucks?

This absolutely proves how copyright is a valuable law for the little guy.

Pure and debunked bullshit. The only ones that really benefit are the big players.

The publishers were tiny compared to Big Search and they were still able to stand tall like David and insist that Goliath must pay them a fair share for their hard work.

The publishers didn't do SHIT. It's the authors that did. And I don't see that many complaining. Again, they can still opt out. Where's the bullying? I'm thinking you have some secret documents telling that google execs pointed guns at the artists and yelled "scan or die!", right?

Re: Re: Et tu, copyright deniers?

While Bob is exagerating to a point where reality does not seem to hold him down... His point about cutting out the middleman in this dealing is solid enough to warrent a thought or two.
Who owns what rights to the published books? Why should it only be the authers getting a say in how the books are used since the publishers are generally the ones bankrolling the authers? I agree that the settlement did not tell anything about the need for cooperation. The wording is just a fancy way of trying to push the existing agenda of the old copyright-industry.
But from there to calling the existing copyright laws a disaster is quite a jump. I would call it clumsy and unwieldy on the internet, but a disaster is quite a strong opinion on the authors part.

Re:

Re:

Why is copyright so holy and inviolate to you? The way you guys go on about copyright, it is you who sound like zealots. You don't want to hear any argument that proves copyright has negative effects and is in fact obsolete in the 21st century.

Re:

"TD definition of innovation: any process Google comes up with to make themselves more money via exploiting others."

TD definition of innovation: a process anyone comes up with to make themselves more money by providing a service the people really, really want to use. FTFY.

"Copyright is never going away."

I bet they said the same thing about prohibition and slavery too. Laws that people don't respect and simply stop following do eventually go away. Respect for current copyright laws is falling all around the world, and I see no reason to think that will change unless copyright laws are massively revised in the near future.

"And protecting people from corporate robber barons like Google is why."

Ask people who they think the real "robber barons" are. Google, who provide a range of very useful and very popular web services, or legacy music labels, film studios and book publishers, who have stretched and contorted copyright law into something completely different to what is was originally intended to be and is massively incompatible with modern technology and societal attitudes.

Re:

In my dreams, one day the people are going to wake up to how copyright is holding back innovation in favor of making a buck.

I do want inventors and artists to get paid for what the create but do I have to wait 1 and 1/2 lifetimes to recognize any value to society?

To the trolls, I recognize you are just trying to chip away at society to get people to make a moral judgement and defer to paying rights holders for 100+ years. It's clear and understandable. However, in my mind, the draconian efforts going in to keeping the money rolling in forever is unreasonable and is holding back clear progress.

Re:

Sadly, trolls are like cockroaches. They never die. Here we are, almost a year without OotB. Then bam! Back with a vengeance! As we can see up above. [shakes head in disappointment] Just when you think one loon is settling down (hi AJ!), you get two more in his place (one of whom had disappeared and the other of whom is even more anti-Google than before, is that even possible with bob?).

As you said though, culture existed before copyright and it'll exist after. Despite what they may believe, the world and creativity and invention will continue. Copyright and patents aside.

Re:

Re:

All of googles search results would probably end up being so many pages, that the price of lumber in the world would be severely affected by production of even a single copy of the book!

Given that situation I think it is doubtful that they could make much money off of it.

If we imagine a reasonably small part of the search results made public, I am pretty sure that we are still talking aggregated data where google do not own much of it.

The only big problems I can see is if the book published a detailed description of how the hundreds of parameters in the background engine works and how to abuse it. I am unsure of the status on those informations and thus how publishing it is seen from a legal point of view!